SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Evaluating Ben Cherington 2014-15
|
Post by elguapo on Dec 22, 2014 10:14:02 GMT -5
After missing out on some big gets that do not bear rehashing, I like what Ben has done lately, adding mid-tier and some elite talent. Castillo is the biggest question mark, but that's due to potential upside.
The one outstanding item from my GM wish list laid out last year would be to acquire a top of the rotation starter -- not necessarily one already established. (There is some chance E. Rodriguez could fulfill this requirement.)
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 22, 2014 16:27:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 23, 2014 5:31:48 GMT -5
Interesting, but what makes Tazawa more (or less) of a free agent than (for example) Bogaerts? That makes me wonder how SD checks in so low. For example, is Quentin a free agent? He signed an extension while under team control but for his free agent years (during his last year in team control), which I'd guess would lower their $/war projection.
Anyway. Interesting but the devil is in the details.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 23, 2014 10:14:44 GMT -5
So, for the Red Sox, I looked at just the non-international FAs:
FA WAR $ $/WAR Napoli 2.7 16 5.925925926 Sandov' 3.5 19 5.428571429 Ramirez 3.1 22 7.096774194 Vic' 2.1 13 6.19047619 Ortiz 2.4 16 6.666666667 Master' 1.9 9.5 5 Koji 1.7 9 5.294117647 Mujica 0.3 4.75 15.83333333 17.7 109.25 6.172316384 I guess it gets you to the same place anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 22:17:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 29, 2015 0:10:38 GMT -5
You read it your way and I'll read mine, I guess. That article did nothing but point out the decisions that could be credited to each. I don't see it as unflattering at all. These are not the same guys, that's quite obvious. And a far as the 2013 Series goes, the team doesn't even get to the playoffs without the players Cherrington acquired. That was implied even if it wasn't stated outright.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 0:55:48 GMT -5
You read it your way and I'll read mine, I guess. That article did nothing but point out the decisions that could be credited to each. I don't see it as unflattering at all. These are not the same guys, that's quite obvious. And a far as the 2013 Series goes, the team doesn't even get to the playoffs without the players Cherrington acquired. That was implied even if it wasn't stated outright.
I only took issue with the writer's conclusion - the portion I quoted. Saying "whether he (Cherington) can build a World Series roster on his own has yet to be seen" reads almost like "until the legacy of Theo Epstein is gone, this isn't really Ben's team." That's not a fair assessment when, as you say, a full third of the 2013 team was signed by Ben and had no connection whatsoever to Theo. Also, if as this writer implies, you apply a standard of legacy, then the Red Sox will remain at least in part Theo's team for quite some time. The 2011 draft of Barnes, Swihart, Owens, Bradley and Betts could alone comprise 20% of the roster by late this season or early 2016.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jan 29, 2015 9:51:39 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't really see any strong conclusion in that article ... or much of a point. I guess it sorta obliquely says that Theo goes by his "heart" more than Cherington's "all business" approach, but I don't know if that's all the helpful or even all that accurate. But I certainly agree that Cherington deserves a lot more credit than this piece seems to give him ...
I could take the two minutes to find the post in this thread, but I think I said something earlier about this offseason providing strong evidence of whether Cherington could be bold and creative in building a team with the opportunity presented. And, so far, it's been impressive, a mix of big trades (Cespedes for Porcello), mid-level trades (Miley), and roster-building trades (Hanigan, Varvaro, and Ross), plus some big free agent signings. He traded off excess AAA depth to clean up the roster but kept all of the prospects I, at least, care about. The franchise from the major league level to the DSL is in better shape than at any point I can remember, I think.
The remaining piece to see is whether his approach on building a pitching staff this year is going to work or not. I understand the difficulty of building a staff essentially from scratch, but it's both the most creative part of his work this winter (interesting approach going for GB-heavy guys matched with catchers who are elite receivers and who control the running game) and the most risky (going without the big anchor of the staff isn't orthodoxy). Gotta say, John Lackey would look pretty good on this staff right now ...
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 29, 2015 10:11:10 GMT -5
The difference between Epstein and Cherington came about precisely because of the absolute disastrous shape that Epstein left the team in when he left, where their payroll had so little maneuverability that they couldn't sign even decent bullpen arms and had zero prospects near the majors who could contribute when players got hurt.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 29, 2015 13:39:55 GMT -5
You read it your way and I'll read mine, I guess. That article did nothing but point out the decisions that could be credited to each. I don't see it as unflattering at all. These are not the same guys, that's quite obvious. And a far as the 2013 Series goes, the team doesn't even get to the playoffs without the players Cherrington acquired. That was implied even if it wasn't stated outright.
I only took issue with the writer's conclusion - the portion I quoted. Saying "whether he (Cherington) can build a World Series roster on his own has yet to be seen" reads almost like "until the legacy of Theo Epstein is gone, this isn't really Ben's team." That's not a fair assessment when, as you say, a full third of the 2013 team was signed by Ben and had no connection whatsoever to Theo. Also, if as this writer implies, you apply a standard of legacy, then the Red Sox will remain at least in part Theo's team for quite some time. The 2011 draft of Barnes, Swihart, Owens, Bradley and Betts could alone comprise 20% of the roster by late this season or early 2016.
I don't see where the writer is knocking Cherington. Cherington has only been on the job for three years. He has yet to build a sustaining winning team that can average near 95 wins per year like Theo. That's a fact, but not a knock on Cherington. Cherington is working under different conditions than Theo. Like Theo, they had a nucleus left over from Dan Dquette. Theo had Pedro, Lowe, and Wakefield with Manny, Tek, Damon, Nixon, and Nomar leading the offense. Theo added his major parts such as Ortiz, the new infield, Schilling, Arroyo, and the entire bullpen including Foulke and Timlin. Theo left Ortiz, Lester, Lackey, Ellsbury, Pedroia, Nava, Tazawa, Bogaerts, and Buchholz as a core for Cherington to work with, and Cherington did well adding a lot of spare parts that brought in Victorino, Napoli, Drew, Gomes, Uehara, etc. I think the biggest difference is that the word is out re: sabermetrics and most front offices today embrace it making it harder to be ahead of the competition. When Theo took over, very few teams were really utilizing sabermetrics and Theo had a huge advantage over those teams. Now the Sox aren't necessarily the smartest guys in the room anymore. I think Cherington has done a good job. He took a disaster of a 2012 team (I don't blame him for Valentine and the lack of moves that offseason given the turmoil the team was in) and made a bunch of moves that did nothing to harm the long-term future. Those moves were mostly Band-Aid solutions that worked brilliantly, but they weren't meant for the long-term. It worked so good they won the Series. Normally you don't do heavy duty lifting when your team wins the Series, so he did small moves around the edges which helped very little when the whole framework of the 2013 Champs fell apart. But what was he supposed to do? Deal a bunch of guys coming off a Championship year? So 2014 happens as drastically as possible. As 2013 was the perfect storm of everything going right, 2014 was its polar opposite. So to his credit, he has rebuilt the Sox in 2015 and has done it without doing anything to destroy the future. I don't like that he lowballed Lester, even up until the end. If the Sox had Lester now, I would think they'd be the hands on favorite to win the pennant, and they wouldn't be hoping that Buchholz and Masterson bounce back or have to deal valuable prospects to get a rental ace or have to sign a free agent next year for more money or years than they would have had to have given Lester. I think a year or two from now, we'll be wondering why Cherington ignored the declining stats from Sandoval and went out and gave him five years and so much money for an average to mediocre player. We might wonder why Uehara was given two years when it was obvious he was gassed in the 2nd half of 2014. We might wonder why Castillo got all that money and perhaps they didn't go that hard for Moncada. But you can do that with all moves. Julio Lugo says hello as does Carl Crawford. But the bottom line is I think all in all Cherington has done a good job because I look at the team and they look reasonably competitive. They should win 85 games and if the pitching gels they could do much better than that even, and I look at the farm system and the Sox still have some strong prospects heading our way. I think Owens, Rodriguez, Barnes, Swihart, and eventually Devers and Margot should be good major leaguers and they have others like Johnston, Cecchini and Marrero that have a future in the bigs, too. Ben is building the Sox so that they should be competitive this year and into the future. He already has a World Championship that he greatly impacted in his back pocket. I think that's a good job. He doesn't have the 10 years of averaging about 95 wins and the 2 championships that Theo had, and I still think that Theo is the best GM the Sox have ever had. I think O'Connell was pretty good, too, especially considering that he was working for Tom Yawkey and dealing with the racial and ineptitude issues that surrounded him. It's not surprising he built a Sox team that finished over .500 for 16 straight years beyond even when he left. Given where they were O'Connell did a good job, and given the hand he was dealt, Duquette did well, too. Even Lou Gorman did well when he first got there, but eventually the game passed him by and he got desperate trying to win the Series. But I still think Theo is the best and Cherington still has a shot at being that good. More Championships is a great place to start.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 17:42:25 GMT -5
In Theo Epstein's defense, people also have to remember that not all signings are even initiated by the GM. For instance, Brian Sabean got back seated by Peter Magowan (then leader of the ownership group for the Giants) in the Barry Zito signing. Deciding that the GM was to blame, up until 2008, SF fans were calling for Sabean's head on a platter. In a rare instance, the owner there was actually the one to fall on the sword. Typically though, the GM gets blamed. I say this because, in the case of the Red Sox, throughout the John Henry era there's always been a three headed monster involved in most major negotiations - Henry, Lucchino and the GM. In the case of the Adrian Gonzalez and Carl Crawford signings, Epstein's contention is that he was back seated in much the same way as Sabean was with Barry Zito: www.sportsgrid.com/mlb/terry-francona-theo-epstein-rip-red-sox/“'They (Red Sox ownership) told us we didn’t have any marketable players, that we needed some sizzle,” Epstein is quoted as saying. “We need some sexy guys. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. This is like an absurdist comedy. We’d become too big. It was the farthest thing removed from what we set out to be.' What made the Sox of the mid-2000s so successful was the fact that they were the opposite of sexy. They were the Idiots, and they broke an 86-year World Series drought, and tacked on another three years later, just for good measure. It was a successful formula, apparently damaged by ownership’s need to bring in “sexy” stars"
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 30, 2015 7:41:37 GMT -5
What made even less sense was that the "sexy guys" had the personality of a wet mop and a whiny kid.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 31, 2015 11:06:13 GMT -5
One thing you can't accuse Ben of failing to do is clearing out a lot of 'suspects'.
Middlebrooks Webster De La Rosa Ranaudo Butler Kurcz Britton & Wilson
all had some degree of suspectivity (yeah, I know) to them.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Jan 31, 2015 11:35:53 GMT -5
It may not work and may not work as fast as some people would like but I really like Cherington's approach. This Red Sox team may have the best collection of young talent (Majors and Minors) I can remember.
For all he did, Epstein failed to win back-to-back division titles. I think this team has a chance to eventually change that.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Jan 31, 2015 11:49:36 GMT -5
I think the 2013 title was a stroke of genius. I liked Theo and rooted for him. But towards the end I hated what he became . He only took the blame for one move Mike Cameron. I heard him say I take the blame for this one. I almost fell off my chair.
I have no proof but I feel he was behind the Francona smear campaign. The reason I think this is because he worked close with Terry and knew him personally. I believe Theo did that because when the team collapse like that usually the manager or G.M. Gets the blame. Theo knew this that whole chicken and beer fiasco. He called in a couple of newspaper connections the rest is history.
Don't get me wrong Lucchino is no angel either. Theo fought for more power and he dressed like a gorilla to leave Fenway. He got more power and what happens. He wants Crawford so bad and signs him. But the problem from the get go. Terry didn't know what to do with him. He didn't have a place in the lineup and we know what happened. That's why I am salty about Theo. the way he left with crappy compensation also. I will take Ben for ever. It got personal for me. One more thing So Theo big plan for the Cubs ,to suck for 5 years and spend on draft and international. So there rated the best system. Congratulations and now comes the hard part to transform prospects to major league talent. He is hoping for All Star talent. We'll see. My opinion is tainted
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Jan 31, 2015 12:04:15 GMT -5
I think the 2013 title was a stroke of genius. I liked Theo and rooted for him. But towards the end I hated what he became . He only took the blame for one move Mike Cameron. I heard him say I take the blame for this one. I almost fell off my chair. I have no proof but I feel he was behind the Francona smear campaign. The reason I think this is because he worked close with Terry and knew him personally. I believe Theo did that because when the team collapse like that usually the manager or G.M. Gets the blame. Theo knew this that whole chicken and beer fiasco. He called in a couple of newspaper connections the rest is history. Don't get me wrong Lucchino is no angel either. Theo fought for more power and he dressed like a gorilla to leave Fenway. He got more power and what happens. He wants Crawford so bad and signs him. But the problem from the get go. Terry didn't know what to do with him. He didn't have a place in the lineup and we know what happened. That's why I am salty about Theo. the way he left with crappy compensation also. I will take Ben for ever. It got personal for me. One more thing So Theo big plan for the Cubs ,to suck for 5 years and spend on draft and international. So there rated the best system. Congratulations and now comes the hard part to transform prospects to major league talent. He is hoping for All Star talent. We'll see. My opinion is tainted I don't feel quite this strongly, but I have always felt Theo and Tom Ricketts began talking long before the end of the 2011 season. And I am deeply suspicious of the way in which he traded Anthony Rizzo -- to himself. When you look at whom he dealt with in SD and their subsequent career advancement, it is hard not to wonder. I have also wondered if Lucchino was the head leaker in Boston, where all the evil Larry stories kept coming from. I suspect Theo, too, had his back channel to the media.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jan 31, 2015 12:32:13 GMT -5
I think you have to judge GMs by how they deal with the cards they are dealt. I think Theo adjusts faster to situations than any GM except Billy Beane - who I think is among the greatest GMs ever.
When Theo took over the Sox they were just about a championship team. They should have won in 2003 except for a bonehead manager. He made the adjustments needed to take the team a step higher to the WS. The team didn't have a great minor league system at the time and he changed that. But he also kept the team competitive by adding key players along the line. Some didn't work out, but this is a game of human beings and humans are not entirely predictable, or projectible.
Theo's future reputation will be based more on what happens with the Cubs than what he did with the Red Sox because the Cubs were a complete wreck when he took over. They had a terrible major league team and a terrible minor league. And now, it is not possible - or at least not practical - to buy a pennant by signing a bunch of star FAs. He had to employ techniques completely different from what he did with the Sox. And he did the smartest thing. He built a first class minor league system that now is about to spout out a bunch of major league stars.
Now he has enough talent to make a few key trades, and he can sign a couple of key FAs - both of which he has done. If the Cubs become perennial contenders and get into the WS, his standing as a GM will rocket up to the top.
The only comment I can make on other aspects of his personality - since I have no direct knowledge of them, or of him, personally - is that in all big organizations, one of the skills necessary to get to the top, or stay at the top, is a certain amount of ruthlessness, of knowing how to escape blame, and knowing how to weaken, or get rid of rivals or threats. It seems that Theo has those skills.
I think it still is a little early to assess Ben, but I don't think he has been quite as nimble as Theo in reacting to changes in the team - including recognizing some needs, nor does he seem to have some of those corporate skills I mentioned in the paragraph above. He seems like a nicer guy, but we know what happens to nice guys.
|
|
|